Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Example.
Favourite party has 2 candidates. One is good, one is not worth voting for in your opinion.
So the choice is, either vote for the one you don't want, or don't vote for a second choice and don't get the candidate you do want elected.
That is not an improvement.
We need the best people in the commons, not the most representative of the diversity of the nation.
For instance, would you really say that a Monster Raving Loony or CURE MP would be of benefit to the running of the nation?
|
You might need to clear the example up because it's confused me but it's the same system as we have now. Only if one person doesn't get 50% then those voters who did not get their candidate in the led can transfer their vote, if they wish, to another candidate they like. If they like the monster raving loony party then there we go. Oh wait,think I semi-got the example. Why would the party put two candidates up?
By the way the current system doesn't elect the best people, it's elects the party who is most popular but disproportionately represents to the popular vote because of the nature of winner takes all in each seat. If it were about the person then we would see far more independents in the house of commons.
---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------
Here is the Wiki article on STV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
There are others forms as as AV+.